Present: Mr.Ashok Bhalla Advocate Vs. State of Haryana and anr - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1064295
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-09-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr.Ashok Bhalla Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana and anr
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 date of decision :09. 05.2013 dr. amrit lal ......petitioner versus state of haryana and anr ...respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice vijender singh malik 1 whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present: mr.ashok bhalla,advocate for the petitioner. mr.amit chaudhary, dag, punjab for respondent no.1. mr.saurav verma, advocate for respondent no.2. -- vijender singh malik , j the present petition has been brought by dr. amrit crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -2- lal under the provisions of section 482 cr.p.c.for quashing the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned additional sessions judge, faridabad, passed in crl. revision petition no.53 of 2011. dr. amrit lal filed a complaint against satvir singh joon for an offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short “the act”.).when the said complaint was pending for evidence of the defence and compromise for 15.02.2011 the parties reached a settlement regarding the dues. satvir singh joon, accused made a statement that he would give a sum of rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement to the complainant in the aforesaid case. in the face of this statement, dr. amrit lal , the petitioner made a statement to the effect that he had heard the statement of the accused and he was ready and willing to take rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement. with these two statements before the magistrate, the magistrate adjourned the case to 16.03.2011 for compromise on joint request. on 16.03.2011 the accused brought a demand draft of rs.1,25,000/- as per the compromise reached on 15.02.2011. the draft has been in favour of the complainant and the accused desired the same to be given to the complainant as per crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -3- the compromise. thereafter the complainant retracted from the compromise and made the following statement on 16.03.2011:- “my and accused's counsel fixed the amount by mutual discussion. when they came to me then i signed in anger. when i got cool down then i realised and i have been deceived. i am not ready to take the demand draft for rs.1,25,000/-.” after making this statement, the complainant moved an application for pursuing the complaint to its logical end claiming that the cheque was issued for rs.3,00,000/- in discharge of his legal liability and the compromise after a gap of about four years for a paltry sum of rs.1,25,000/- has been against his true wishes and stands withdrawn by him. he refused to compound the offence. taking reply of the application, learned judicial magistrate ist class, faridabad came to the conclusion that the statement dated 15.02.2011 had not been acted upon and, therefore, the complainant could withdraw the same. hence, he allowed the application vide order dated 18.05.2011. the said order was challenged by way of revision by the accused, who vide order dated 01.10.2011 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to learned crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -4- judicial magistrate ist class, faridabad for proceeding according to law. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque was for a sum of rs.3,00,000/- and after a period of four years or so, he could not be expected to accept a sum of rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement against that claim. according to him, as the matter was pending since long, in a state of anger he signed the statement. according to him, even otherwise the statement was for payment of rs.1,25,000/- upto 15.03.2011 and as the amount was not paid up to 15.03.2011, the petitioner had a right to withdraw from his earlier statement on 16.03.2011 by not accepting the amount of rs.1,25,000/-. learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the other hand, has contended that there could be no question of the petitioner signing the statement in state of anger. according to him, the statement was signed before the court and it clearly shows that the same could not be signed in the state of anger. he has further submitted that after recording the statements, the court gave the next date of hearing as 16.03.2011 on which respondent no.2 came ready with the draft in a sum of rs.1,25,000/- and the petitioner could not crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -5- withdraw from his previous statement as the matter already stood compromised and what was left to be done was only payment of rs.1,25,000/- under that compromise. why the petitioner was angry in putting his signatures is not apparent from his statement. even if it is taken that he was angry while signing the statement, he claims that he realised on cooling down that he had been deceived. the statement was made on 15.02.2011 and if that was made in anger he should have been cooled down within a day or two and should have made a statement to the court expressing his intention not to go with the compromise. he did not do so, which shows that his statement that he signed the statement in state of anger is incorrect. moreover he says that the amount was settled by the counsel of the two sides by mutual discussion. what was the cause of anger with the petitioner and why he signed the statement in such a state of mind and that too before the court is not evident on the record. the court itself gave next date of hearing as 16.03.2011. on that day, the respondent came ready with the draft in a sum of rs.1,25,000/-, the amount agreed to be paid in full and final settlement to the claim of the petitioner. crl. misc. not m- 38046 of 2011 -6- there is no default at all on the part of respondent no.2 in the matter and as the matter already stood compromised, the petitioner could not retract from the same. in these circumstances, i find no reason to hold the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned additional sessions judge, faridabad to be bad in any manner. consequently the petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed. 09.05.2013 (vijender singh malik) dinesh judge
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 Date of decision :

09. 05.2013 Dr.

Amrit Lal ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and anr ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present: Mr.Ashok Bhalla,Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1.

Mr.Saurav Verma, Advocate for respondent no.2.

-- VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J The present petition has been brought by Dr.

Amrit Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -2- Lal under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, passed in Crl.

Revision Petition No.53 of 2011.

Dr.

Amrit Lal filed a complaint against Satvir Singh Joon for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”.).When the said complaint was pending for evidence of the defence and compromise for 15.02.2011 the parties reached a settlement regarding the dues.

Satvir Singh Joon, accused made a statement that he would give a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement to the complainant in the aforesaid case.

In the face of this statement, Dr.

Amrit Lal , the petitioner made a statement to the effect that he had heard the statement of the accused and he was ready and willing to take Rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement.

With these two statements before the Magistrate, the Magistrate adjourned the case to 16.03.2011 for compromise on joint request.

On 16.03.2011 the accused brought a demand draft of Rs.1,25,000/- as per the compromise reached on 15.02.2011.

The draft has been in favour of the complainant and the accused desired the same to be given to the complainant as per Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -3- the compromise.

Thereafter the complainant retracted from the compromise and made the following statement on 16.03.2011:- “My and accused's counsel fixed the amount by mutual discussion.

When they came to me then I signed in anger.

When I got cool down then I realised and I have been deceived.

I am not ready to take the demand draft for Rs.1,25,000/-.”

After making this statement, the complainant moved an application for pursuing the complaint to its logical end claiming that the cheque was issued for Rs.3,00,000/- in discharge of his legal liability and the compromise after a gap of about four years for a paltry sum of Rs.1,25,000/- has been against his true wishes and stands withdrawn by him.

He refused to compound the offence.

Taking reply of the application, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad came to the conclusion that the statement dated 15.02.2011 had not been acted upon and, therefore, the complainant could withdraw the same.

Hence, he allowed the application vide order dated 18.05.2011.

The said order was challenged by way of revision by the accused, who vide order dated 01.10.2011 accepted the revision petition and remanded the case back to learned Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -4- Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad for proceeding according to law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque was for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and after a period of four years or so, he could not be expected to accept a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in full and final settlement against that claim.

According to him, as the matter was pending since long, in a state of anger he signed the statement.

According to him, even otherwise the statement was for payment of Rs.1,25,000/- upto 15.03.2011 and as the amount was not paid up to 15.03.2011, the petitioner had a right to withdraw from his earlier statement on 16.03.2011 by not accepting the amount of Rs.1,25,000/-.

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 on the other hand, has contended that there could be no question of the petitioner signing the statement in state of anger.

According to him, the statement was signed before the court and it clearly shows that the same could not be signed in the state of anger.

He has further submitted that after recording the statements, the court gave the next date of hearing as 16.03.2011 on which respondent no.2 came ready with the draft in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and the petitioner could not Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -5- withdraw from his previous statement as the matter already stood compromised and what was left to be done was only payment of Rs.1,25,000/- under that compromise.

Why the petitioner was angry in putting his signatures is not apparent from his statement.

Even if it is taken that he was angry while signing the statement, he claims that he realised on cooling down that he had been deceived.

The statement was made on 15.02.2011 and if that was made in anger he should have been cooled down within a day or two and should have made a statement to the court expressing his intention not to go with the compromise.

He did not do so, which shows that his statement that he signed the statement in state of anger is incorrect.

Moreover he says that the amount was settled by the counsel of the two sides by mutual discussion.

What was the cause of anger with the petitioner and why he signed the statement in such a state of mind and that too before the court is not evident on the record.

The court itself gave next date of hearing as 16.03.2011.

On that day, the respondent came ready with the draft in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the amount agreed to be paid in full and final settlement to the claim of the petitioner.

Crl.

Misc.

not M- 38046 of 2011 -6- There is no default at all on the part of respondent no.2 in the matter and as the matter already stood compromised, the petitioner could not retract from the same.

In these circumstances, I find no reason to hold the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad to be bad in any manner.

Consequently the petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed.

09.05.2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE